Rachel Alexandra - what would her odds be in the BC Distaff?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I agree, more than likely a public workout for more than $1M. But I guess when your JJ, is it worth a million dollars to risk something bad happening to what you hope will be producing champion after champion for you? She doesn't have anything to gain by running. My guess is JJ keeps all of her babies, so the BC Distaff champion moniker means nothing.

No offense but this warped view of the sport is absolutely ruining the game at the highest level.

[letswastemoney]

How old is Jess Jackson?

Why the heck would he retire Rachel if he's just going to spend his last days looking for the exact same quality? Even a 90% Rachel is VERY difficult to find and you could spend a lifetime without finding a horse this talented.

Good luck with that JJ. What you want is already yours, and apparently you have decided to retire her.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

How old is Jess Jackson?

Why the heck would he retire Rachel if he's just going to spend his last days looking for the exact same quality? Even a 90% Rachel is VERY difficult to find and you could spend a lifetime without finding a horse this talented.

Good luck with that JJ. What you want is already yours, and apparently you have decided to retire her.

The reasoning behind retiring the horse seems pretty simple. Jess Jackson knew that he and his filly were going to be overshadowed if she were to run in the Distaff and that she had no shot in the Classic. How much would it kill him if Zenyatta were to win the Classic and dominate the headlines regardless of what RA did??? So he decided to take his ball and go home.

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The reasoning behind retiring the horse seems pretty simple. Jess Jackson knew that he and his filly were going to be overshadowed if she were to run in the Distaff and that she had no shot in the Classic. How much would it kill him if Zenyatta were to win the Classic and dominate the headlines regardless of what RA did??? So he decided to take his ball and go home.

ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The reasoning behind retiring the horse seems pretty simple. Jess Jackson knew that he and his filly were going to be overshadowed if she were to run in the Distaff and that she had no shot in the Classic. How much would it kill him if Zenyatta were to win the Classic and dominate the headlines regardless of what RA did??? So he decided to take his ball and go home.

someone said this was a winner...but, i don't know. the woodward and the schedule as a 3 yo was a killer for her. i thought she would retire last year. after she lost and they did not run her in the appleblossom ...i thought she would not race again....but, she did and lost a couple more times to horses that could not touch her the year before. so face it, those saying she was 90% are not even close. she is probably like 80% the horse she was. jackson probably came to his senses (unlike the emotional fan base) and said this horse has had enough. i saw the race up here and we felt bad for her after...she ran her guts out. bullet work outs are meaningless if the horse does not have it in the afternoon. i really believe that jackson did the right thing for this horse....even though he was actually late doing it. he was riding the same emotions that all the people that are mad about it are still riding. it was pretty much over after last season.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

someone said this was a winner...but, i don't know. the woodward and the schedule as a 3 yo was a killer for her. i thought she would retire last year. after she lost and they did not run her in the appleblossom ...i thought she would not race again....but, she did and lost a couple more times to horses that could not touch her the year before. so face it, those saying she was 90% are not even close. she is probably like 80% the horse she was. jackson probably came to his senses (unlike the emotional fan base) and said this horse has had enough. i saw the race up here and we felt bad for her after...she ran her guts out. bullet work outs are meaningless if the horse does not have it in the afternoon. i really believe that jackson did the right thing for this horse....even though he was actually late doing it. he was riding the same emotions that all the people that are mad about it are still riding. it was pretty much over after last season.

Let me get this straight....the horse Rachel ran into the ground at Saratoga, just came back to cruise in the Beldame. But Rachel was like 80% of what she was last year? She has had enough? But her fans are the emotional ones?

I'll agree she wasn't as good this year as last. But she was still pretty good this year and her last race might have been her best on the year. If she was up the track I could understand this point of view, but at no point was she not competitive.

It's not about riding any kind of emotions and I'm almost positive Cannon isn't an emotional RA fan. It would appear you are letting your emotions about Zenyatta cloud your judgement. Or you just don't know what you are talking about.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let me get this straight....the horse Rachel ran into the ground at Saratoga, just came back to cruise in the Beldame. But Rachel was like 80% of what she was last year? She has had enough? But her fans are the emotional ones?

I'll agree she wasn't as good this year as last. But she was still pretty good this year and her last race might have been her best on the year. If she was up the track I could understand this point of view, but at no point was she not competitive.

It's not about riding any kind of emotions and I'm almost positive Cannon isn't an emotional RA fan. It would appear you are letting your emotions about Zenyatta cloud your judgement. Or you just don't know what you are talking about.

i did not even mention zenyatta. she does not even run at saratoga. so, you probably think i don't know what i'm talking about. even though my "job" is pretty much betting. but heres what i see. the horse is giving all she can and LOSING. cruising in the beldame was not a given...the horse that won (life at ten) was in there. another horse that beat rachel was in there. in all reality she could of very well lost again and i think her camp was not willing to allow that. like i said she looked awful running her guts out at saratoga...no, she was not up the track. but she lost to an inferior horse and rachel was walking at the end...i love that horse. for your information, i rented a car in virginia and drove 3 hours to see her win the preakness. why does zenyattta come up every time someone talks about rachel? those are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. by the way i thought rachel deserved horse of the year too.....

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i did not even mention zenyatta. she does not even run at saratoga. so, you probably think i don't know what i'm talking about. even though my "job" is pretty much betting. but heres what i see. the horse is giving all she can and LOSING. cruising in the beldame was not a given...the horse that won (life at ten) was in there. another horse that beat rachel was in there. in all reality she could of very well lost again and i think her camp was not willing to allow that. like i said she looked awful running her guts out at saratoga...no, she was not up the track. but she lost to an inferior horse and rachel was walking at the end...i love that horse. for your information, i rented a car in virginia and drove 3 hours to see her win the preakness.

She looked awful at Saratoga but the horse she crushed came back to win the Beldame. Get the connection?

Life At Ten also lost to an inferior horse at Saratoga and came back to win. Get the connection?

She was walking at the end because the jockeys rode the race like a match race. She won the match. She just got run down by a longshot, who neither jock thought could beat them. I think Persistantly proved her win in the PE was a fluke with her showing in the Beldame.

The truth is she would have had a very good chance in the Beldame and the Distaff. No shame in running there....except for Jess Jackson.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i did not even mention zenyatta. she does not even run at saratoga. so, you probably think i don't know what i'm talking about. even though my "job" is pretty much betting. but heres what i see. the horse is giving all she can and LOSING. cruising in the beldame was not a given...the horse that won (life at ten) was in there. another horse that beat rachel was in there. in all reality she could of very well lost again and i think her camp was not willing to allow that. like i said she looked awful running her guts out at saratoga...no, she was not up the track. but she lost to an inferior horse and rachel was walking at the end...i love that horse. for your information, i rented a car in virginia and drove 3 hours to see her win the preakness. why does zenyattta come up every time someone talks about rachel? those are the ones that don't know what they are talking about. by the way i thought rachel deserved horse of the year too.....

Not to pick on you, because others have made similar statements, but....ummm....didn't she win some races too?
The way some people are writing about her this year I'm starting to wonder if the Fleur de Lis I thought I watched was really just a dream.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

How old is Jess Jackson?

born February 18, 1930 - AGE 80

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No offense but this warped view of the sport is absolutely ruining the game at the highest level.

I never said I wouldn't run her. Nor do I say I agree with the decision not to run her.

But honestly, it does seem as though she has more to lose than to gain running in the Distaff.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

I never said I wouldn't run her. Nor do I say I agree with the decision not to run her.

But honestly, it does seem as though she has more to lose than to gain running in the Distaff.

I completely disagree. I think she has nothing to lose. I think pretty much everyone concedes she never reached last year's level, so losing again would be further confirmation. If she popped and won, however, it would be quite an achievement.

The decision is being overshadowed by Zenyatta, whom Jess let get in his head a long time ago with this ridiculous schedule. IMO, RA would still have a much better chance at the Distaff than Z has at the Classic.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I completely disagree. I think she has nothing to lose. I think pretty much everyone concedes she never reached last year's level, so losing again would be further confirmation. If she popped and won, however, it would be quite an achievement.

The decision is being overshadowed by Zenyatta, whom Jess let get in his head a long time ago with this ridiculous schedule. IMO, RA would still have a much better chance at the Distaff than Z has at the Classic.

If she wins the Distaff, what race do you harken back to as the fondest memory of her career? The Kentucky Oaks, The Preakness, The Haskell, The Woodward or the Distaff?

My thoughts are they rank:

Woodward
Kentucky Oaks
Preakness
Distaff
Haskell

No matter what she does in the race, her legend has peaked. I don't think she would, but should she get beat, again, it takes just that much more luster off of what she has already accomplished. It's just my opinion, and I am a fan. She gave us a lot of thrills last year, and anyone that was at the Woodward knows they got down to the very bottom that day. I would have bet a lot of money that they would have retired her as HOY.

[Thunder Gulch]

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I don't think a loss takes anything away. She was the best 3yo filly I ever saw, so why does losing again change that?

As much as I want to say beating the boys in the Haskell and Woodward were her best, the overwhelming sight of her drawing off by 20 in the Oaks in front of 100,000 people will be the one I never forget. To win that race- at that place- in that manner...

IMO, it's very close. I guess because I was there for the Woodward, standing just past the finish line at ground level, it is a moment I will never forget.

[slotdirt]

I was there for both the Preakness and the Oaks last year - two entirely different kinds of wins - and I'd say the Oaks will always be her career-defining performance.

[NTamm1215]

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I understand what's been said here but it also illustrates one of the biggest problems we have in the game.

This idea that if a horse loses they're suddenly no good and their accomplishments are tarnished is lunacy. Racing became the game that was easy to fall in love with because people challenged their horses, it was a sport. It didn't matter if you lost. Everyone and their brother knew that Secretariat was not 100% leading up to the Whitney, including Ron Turcotte but there was no way he wasn't going to run. He ran and he lost, but he still had opportunities to restore any lost luster and we don't remember him as the horse that lost the Whitney.

Now, we have these nauseating 5-6 race campaigns where horses run every 8 weeks, in what trainers deem the easiest possible spots, so that they can get out of the year with a horse ready for stud duty and a possible Eclipse Award.

Hell, I'm a fan of Blame and think that his campaign this year has been a complete joke. Quality Road's has arguably been even worse. Trainers and owners are not willing to put good horses to the test anymore and that's wrecking the game.

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

[Thunder Gulch]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

They would come back in some Allowance race or perhaps a G3, where winning was desired but not required to prep for the G1 races. Different game nowadays.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You nailed it. Remember when horses prepped in races they probably couldn't win, but they needed the race? Nowadays if a horse loses their prep race they all of the sudden stink. It's an interesting game now. A lot different than the one I grew up following.

I completely agree on the different point but to me the game is less interesting than it has ever been. No rivalries are ever created because in the rare occurance that two top horses meet, the loser almost invariably slinks off to grade 3 land and the winner's connections expect to be coronated. About the closest thing we have to a rivalry is Havre de Grace and Blind Luck.